Testy Copy Editors http://www.testycopyeditors.org/phpBB3/ |
|
Found on Craigslist http://www.testycopyeditors.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9746 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | lfelaco [ Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:18 pm ] |
Post subject: | Found on Craigslist |
Temporary Onsite Placement for Contract Copyeditor: • Long-term position, 5 days a week onsite in Herndon, VA • Two openings immediately available; positions will probably last for several months [...] Qualifications: • ALL candidates must successfully complete a 3-hour-long battery of tests of English-language, copyediting, and proofreading skills. • If tests scores are acceptable, candidate will then be interviewed by our client. http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/wri/746899287.html If you heard a noise, it was the sound of my jaw hitting the floor... a 3-hour test just to get an *interview* for a temporary contract job??? |
Author: | Bumfketeer [ Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
"Long-term position" "will last for several months." WTF is up with that? |
Author: | Rio [ Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:38 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I can't for the life of me understand why the hiring company would want to waste so much time reviewing a myriad of three-hour tests from job prospects, some of whom no doubt wouldn't last five minutes in an interview. Oh, yeah, and then there's the inconvenience imposed on the test-takers as well. |
Author: | lfelaco [ Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:40 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I've certainly had my share of people who come off great in an interview only to bomb the test, so I can *almost* see their point in requiring the testing prior to interview (though 3 hours is overkill, you can get a decent sense of someone's skills in far less time, or at any rate I always have). Though my solution to the great interview/lousy test problem is to give the test first and skim it over before we sit down to talk about the job; then I can cut the discussion short if the person's test isn't up to snuff. |
Author: | Editer [ Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:08 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
If the client wants the applicants thoroughly tested, then you can bet it's paying the recruiter to do it. It's not wasted time from the recruiter's perspective if it's billable. And I suspect that the recruiter may have computerized tests where they can just sit each applicant down and check in on them every hour or so. It's probably not labor-intensive. The job itself, I'd bet, is with a private information company that caters to businesses with far-flung operations that need detailed, accurate info; a similar one is based in my town, and it pays its copy editors better than most newspapers. |
Author: | lfelaco [ Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:13 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Actually, according to the ad, the job is editing textbooks--and not even college textbooks at that, just elementary, middle school, and high school. |
Author: | cobra_kai [ Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:45 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I went to what I thought was an interview a few years back with a financial advice Web site operation. They gave me a test that had 52 errors in it, and if I didn't catch at least 47 of them, I was summarily dismissed. I caught 45 of the errors, and was told I didn't make the cut for an interview. This, of course, was for a full-time job, but still. |
Author: | lfelaco [ Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:48 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
But an editing test isn't a math test, and not all infelicities in writing are flat-out errors. Seems to me you're going to end up with people with tunnel vision using that approach. |
Author: | longwords [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:44 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
If the job involves editing textbooks for "English" classes, maybe they want people with tunnel vision. |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |